SRI LANKA: Policemen have yet to be charged over the custodial death of a man

Dear friends, 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that the policemen responsible for the death of a man while in their custody eight months ago have not been charged, despite recommendation by the court in a death inquest that they should be prosecuted. 

CASE DETAILS: (Based on the testimony of the victim’s wife) 

On 30 March 2008, between 6pm to 6:30pm, the victim, Bolonnage Dinusha Udara Bolonna was taken into police custody by Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Gekiyanage of the Bandaragama Police Station. He was at the Bandaragama Veedagama area when the police took him on charges of allegedly harboring a fire arm. 

About seven officers, also including one Chandana Liyanage, took Dinusha Udara in a jeep to the Bandaragama police. At about 7pm to 7:30pm that day, Chandana Liyanage telephoned the house where the victim’s wife, Pradeepa Priyangani, was staying informing her to come to the police station. When Pradeepa Priyangani reached the police station at about 8pm, she saw her husband sitting on the floor of the police detention cell. His hands were handcuffed behind his back while one of his legs was cuffed by the door of the cell. 

Dinusha Udara then told his wife to look for the house of Sampath. She was told that she would be able to find Sampath once she is also able to locate a person name Anusha. The latter’s house was near the Panadura new bridge. He said Sampath had a fire arm and that he should bring it and come. He further stated that he would be produced in court the following morning. 

Accordingly Pradeepa Priyangani, she and her child were also taken in a police jeep to the Wadduwa Police Station. The Woman Police Officer (WPC), a police assistant who bears officer No. 84777, had accompanied them together with a police driver. In Sri Lanka, an officer could often be immediately identified by the officer number displayed in their uniform. The jeep they were riding parked at the Wadduwa Police Station for about one hour and later a police constable, who was also inside the jeep, received a phone call instructing him to proceed supposedly to get the firearm. 

They first went to the Anusha’s house. The latter also accompanied them at about 11pm in going to the Sampath’s house but he was not there at the time. Sampath’s mother then took them to another place searching for Sampath. The road heading to it was dark. Sampath’s mother went there with his uncle. The location of the said house was not known. At the time, Pradeepa Priyangani stayed near the jeep with her child. 

However, when it took the group too long for them to return, officer No. 8477 had asked Pradeepa Priyangani to follow the group to check what the cause of the delay was. However, on her way she decided to return as she could not proceed because the place was too dark. Sampath, however, came with his mother and his uncle. They then proceeded back to Sampath’s house. After arriving, Sampath went inside their house and was seen carrying a lengthy white box as he emerged which he gave to the police. 

Then the police asked Sampath also to come with them. They all went back to Anusha’s house. While they were near the temple they opened the box. Inside the box was a weapon wrapped with cloth. Pradeepa Priyanganis says she does not know what it was, however, the WPC had told her that there was a T-56, a Chinese made firearm; and a Gal katas (Molotov cocktail). 

Upon seeing what was inside the box, officer no. 8477 contracted some one by the phone apparently informing the person on the next line that they had found a T-56 and a Gal katas inside the box. They then closed the box as they all proceeded back to the Bandaragama Police Station. 

At the Bandsaragama Police Station, the police officers took the box inside. It was about 3am the following day, March 31, when Pradeepa Priyangani requested them to allow her to see her husband, but the police told her that it was not possible for her to see him at that time. She was instead told to return at 7am. Pradeepa Priyangani was then sent to her uncle’s house. 

At around 7am, Pradeepa Priyangani went back to the police station to see her husband. The Reserve officer told her to wait until the OIC arrives. Pradeepa Priyangani, however, noticed that her husband was no longer in the police detention cell. She went to the canteen where she waited until 9am. While she was waiting there, she overheard a group of women talking that a person from the Veedagama area had been killed. She approach them asking if they knew whether the person was a man or a woman. They told her they were unaware since no one was allowed to see the body. 

Pradeepa Priyangani was later asked by her uncle who came by a three-wheeler to come with him going back to their home. At home, her uncle told her that he has received information that the policemen have killed someone. Later, one of their neighbors came to inform them that the person the policemen have killed was Dinusha Udara. 

At 10:30am to 11am of the same day, Pradeepa Priyangani went back to the Bandaragama Police Station requesting them to register a complaint about what she has learned but she was refused. An officer told her that if her husband had done wrong there was no necessity to lodge a complaint. However Pradeepa Priyangani insisted for several times yet the officer did not take her complaint down. 

When a crew from a national television channel came to the police station, they too were refused from seeing the dead body of the person. When the relatives of Dinusha Udara return to the police station, they were told to proceed to the Bandaragama Hospital to identify the dead body. They, however, were not allowed to see the body until the Magistrate came at about 2:30pm to 3:30pm. It was only that time that Pradeepa Priyangani and her relatives was able to confirm that the dead body at the Mortuary, whose hands still have hand cuffs on, was her husband. 

The Magistrate told Pradeepa Priyangani to come to the Horana Court on 9 April 2008. She requested from the Magistrate that the death inquest should be not conducted by the Bandaragama Police Station. The body was then taken to the Pandura Hospital. The following day, April 1, the death inquest was carried out and the body handed over to relatives. In the death inquest, it was revealed that Dinusha Udara had sustained gun shots to his head and his mouth. 

Pradeepa Priyangani alleged that Nimal Karunaratna, OIC of the Wadduwa Police, was responsible for shooting and killing of her husband. Nimal Karunaratna himself stated the he has been requested to help in the case by the Bandaragama Police Station. 

The case in relation to this, bearing Case No. 37933/08, was filed before the Horana Magistrates Court. On 15 July 2008, a recommendation has already been made that since it was evident to the court that the victim’s death was suspicious, all evidence in connection with the victim’s death should be referred to the Attorney General (AG). 

However, since the said recommendation was put forward, there has not been any action taken. On 6 November 2008, Pradeepa Priyangani has written to the Attorney General requesting the said office the filing of charges against Nimal Karunaratna and other policemen involved; however, to date the AG has not taken any action so far. 

Prior to his death, Dinusha Udara was working in a screen printing shop. He has studied at a Buddhist school in Panadura Sri Sumangala Boys School where he has excelled up to the Advanced Level examination. In those days, during his free time, he usually gives a private tutorial in the subjects of Science and Sinhala language. 

SUGGESTED ACTION: 
Please write to the Attorney General and other authorities to take immediate action in filing of charges against the policemen involved. 

The AHRC has also written to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions calling for intervention in this case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER